Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1984

Vol. 106 No. 8

State Financial Transactions (Special Provisions) Bill, 1984 [Certified Money Bill] : Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The object of this Bill is to enable me, as Minister for Finance, to ensure the continued efficient operation of State financial transactions.

The measures in it are such as would be reasonable to cater for any temporary disruption or threat of disruption in the public finances. This need not necessarily be due to a strike but could be due to any other factors and it is, therefore, desirable in the widest sense that this Bill be passed.

I propose now to refer to the provisions contained in the Bill. First I wish to draw the attention of the House to two minor errors in the Bill as circulated. In section 1 on line 22 of page 2, the word "Exchequer" is misspelt and in section 2 (2) (c) on line 49 of page 3 the word "reference" should be in the plural and the comma after the word should be omitted.

Section 1 contains some necessary definitions. Provisions for commencement and termination are contained in section 2 (1). I would point especially to the provisions in section 2 (1) (a) that before making any arrangements under the Act, the Minister for Finance will be required to be satisfied that due to special circumstances it is impossible to carry on business in the normal manner and may accordingly, in the national interest, make whatever special arrangements are deemed necessary.

As Minister for Finance I am responsible under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, for:

the administration and business generally of the public finance of Ireland and all powers, duties and functions connected with same, including in particular the collection and expenditure of the revenues of Ireland.

I wish to make it clear that it is the Minister for Finance alone who is responsible for the State's financial business. Many of the functions carried out by the Central Bank on a day-to-day basis are delegated to it for reasons of convenience. This, of course, is a reference to functions other than the statutory functions of the bank as laid down in legislation.

The collection of the State's revenues and payments of the State's expenses are, rightly, the subject of careful statutory restriction. Article 11 of the Constitution provides for payment of all the revenues of the State into a single fund, known as the Central Fund, and payments into and issues from that fund are regulated by law.

Section 2 of the Bill provides, if necessary, for the introduction of special revised arrangements for operating the Exchequer and State accounts and for carrying out certain State financial transactions, and it is the purpose of the first important part of the Bill, section 2 (2), to provide statutory support for these arrangements.

A statute which is particularly relevant in this regard is the 1866 Exchequer and Audit Departments Act. This old statute is still the basic Act governing much of the State's accounting practices. It sets out strict controls in relation to the lodgment of revenues to and the issue of moneys from the Exchequer account involving the Comptroller and Auditor General in his capacity as Comptroller of the Exchequer. The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General have been fully consulted by my Department in relation to the preparation of this legislation and that office agree with the need for the proposed legislation. The Governor of the Central Bank has been consulted on the preparation of this legislation.

The Bill provides for my Department to consult with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to any arrangements made and it will be the intention of my Department to provide arrangements which satisfy him. The arrangements made will, of course, be subject to review by the Comptroller in the normal course.

The only statutory function of the Central Bank affected by this Bill is its operation in relation to the Exchequer account. The Central Bank's other main functions in relation to the operation of monetary policy which includes the regulation of credit, interest rates and the management of the official external reserves and also its role in relation to bank licensing and supervision and exchange controls are not affected by the Bill.

The second important part of the Bill, section 2 (3), empowers me to postpone by order the redemption of, or the payment of interest or dividends on, Government domestic securities where I am satisfied that it is not possible to make such payments. I regret to say that during the Central Bank strike it will not be possible to make dividend payments on domestic Government stocks or land bonds listed on the Irish Stock Exchange issued before the commencement of the strike on 3 December 1984; or to redeem domestic securities falling due for redemption during the period of the strike, where the registers of such issues are held by the Central Bank. These registers, which include both computerised and manual systems, contain details of many thousands of accounts, and without access to the registers it is not possible to make the payments where due.

Section 3 sets out the procedure for arranging for the redemption of, or payment of interest or dividends on, securities postponed under section 2 (3) when the situation returns to normal. A new date for the redemption or payment of interest or dividend may be fixed by me and this new date must be within three months of the end of the strike or whatever special circumstances required the postponement. The section also provides that interest will be payable on payments which were postponed and the order will specify the actual rate.

Section 4 provides for the laying of orders made under the Bill before each House of the Oireachtas and section 5 is the normal provision for administrative expenses.

To sum up, this Bill is necessary to enable the Minister for Finance to fulfil his statutory responsibility for the administration and business generally of the public finances; to ensure that he has adequate statutory support for such temporary measures as are needed to maintain operations on the Exchequer and other related accounts and to provide for payment of interest to persons who may be deprived of interest or dividends or repayment of capital owing to the temporary inability of the Minister for Finance to ensure payments.

Failure to take the proposed measures would cause very substantial disruption to the State's financial business and very considerable inconvenience, and hardship in many cases, to ordinary citizens. Even with the measures in place there could still be considerable inconvenience.

I commend this Bill to the House as a realistic and sensible measure to ensure the continued smooth operation of the State's banking and financial business.

I want to make two specific points relating to the Bill. The first concerns the question of the postponement of interest payments on Government stock which, as the Minister has indicated, will cause hardship to vulnerable categories of people. Secondly, I wish to refer to the problem of the management of the official external reserves during the Central Bank strike.

Regarding the postponement of interest payments on Government stocks, there is no question but that this will hit the most vulnerable people in the country, pensioners, widows, people who own small farm holdings, and all this before Christmas. Surely some arrangement could be made to pay these vulnerable people the small interest payments on which they depend heavily for their income. These people just cannot afford to wait for what may well be a matter of months for payment of interest on stock which they invested in the firm belief that their interest payments would be paid promptly by the State. We must show compassion towards these people and we must show imagination in trying to solve the problem.

It is usual in Central Banks abroad to have exempt staff, union members who are exempt because of certain sensitive duties they perform, like foreign exchange. If we had exempt staff, they could handle the payment of interest to hard pressed people who depend on these interest payments for their income. There is a compelling case for exempt staff in our Central Bank to handle in particular the payment of these dividends.

I want to put a question to the Minister. Has a request been made to the union concerned, the ASTMS, to exempt staff so that they could carry out this work on economic as well as compassionate grounds?

Another suggestion which the Minister might consider is that members of the staff in his own Department, the Department of Finance, might take the registers out of the Central Bank and process the interest payments. I specifically want to know the answer to my question as to whether a request has been put to the union to exempt certain staff to handle this dividend payment work.

My second point relates to the management of the external reserves of the Central Bank. The Central Bank is the custodian of the official external reserves which are the assets of the nation. It is vital that these reserves are safe and that they are still, despite the strike, being invested in such a way as to secure the best possible return for the country. Who is ensuring that we get the best possible return on these reserves? In other words, who is managing these reserves right now? A drop of even 1 per cent return on the reserves, let us say for a period of four months — I hope the strike does not last that long but it could last for four months — would mean a loss of the order of £6 million to the Exchequer.

I would ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that there will be a time limit to this Bill. It is very important in any country that its Central Bank should enjoy a degree of quasi-independence. The repeal of this Act at the earliest possible moment is necessary.

I welcome the Bill as a necessary response to the irresponsible actions which have been taken by the staff of the Central Bank in the pursuit of a wholly unreasonable claim, aided and abetted by the irresponsible actions of the main Opposition party. Senator Hillery expresses the hope that the strike will not last for four months. If the party to which he lends his affiliation continues to issue statements of support for exorbitant claims in the public service, then we can expect not only a strike in that area but other strikes of long duration.

I took care not to make reference to pay policy in the public service and if the Senator was listening he would understand that.

I well understand that Senator Hillery did not mention it because it was an embarrassment to him. I am merely mentioning and bringing to a logical conclusion the convoluted and wholly irrational policy at present being pursued by the party of which he is a member.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Leary, please get back to the Bill.

That would make for much more comfortable listening, but on the Appropriation Bill next week I will have the opportunity of expressing my views on those matters and, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I hope you will be in the House to hear what I have to say on it and to understand.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Continue on the Bill before you.

This Bill is brought in because of a strike in a State area. Surely I am entitled to comment on the strike. I do not intend to go on at any great length, because I intend to do so next week instead. Having made that point and having given notice of my intention to develop it at a later time, there are one or two aspects of the legislation with which I am not satisfied.

Senator Hillery identified an area of difficulty when he said that the Bill should last for a limited length of time. I also recognise that the Minister for Finance in his introductory speech stated that certain of these changes in legislation should be a permanent feature of our organisation of public finances. It states in his script that it could, for example, be necessitated by a breakdown in the computer facilities or some other matter which is not necessarily associated with the present crisis. I understand that. I have no doubt that arrangements of a long term nature are necessary but arrangements of a long term nature should be made with due process. They should not be made and incorporated into a Bill which is passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas in an atmosphere of urgency, when the length of time when the Houses of the Oireachtas have to examine the legislation is limited. That is not right.

If permanent arrangements are necessary in the view of the Minister for Finance, he should come back at a later stage and put permanent arrangements to us. The appropriate way in which to do that is to have a date for the expiry of this Bill. I will be moving an amendment on Committee Stage which will be designed to have that effect. I will deal with the actual mechanism and why I choose the particular way of doing it on Committee Stage.

We have to be careful of Ministers, acting on advice of civil servants, proposing legislation which could be abused by future Ministers. As I read this legislation, the Minister for Finance could decide not to pay any dividends because it was temporarily inconvenient for him. Section 2 (1), which is the operative portion of the Bill, contains the phrase "owing to special circumstances of a temporary nature". The non-availability of money might constitute circumstances of a temporary nature and if those circumstances come about a future Minister for Finance could bring into operation the procedure outlined in section 2 (1). One of the possible effects of bringing that procedure into operation is outlined in section 2 (3). That is the suspension of the payment of dividends and various other things that follow. Under subsection (3) the Minister has to be satisfied that the payment of interest cannot be effected. It does not mean it cannot be effected because of a physical problem but it cannot be effected for some other reason. It does not say it cannot be affected because the computer has broken down or because the staff are on strike. Maybe it cannot be effected because the Minister has not raised sufficient taxation to enable him to pay it.

I am not suggesting for one moment that there is any possibility of that happening now or in the immediate future. We are legislating for generations that are to come. We are legislating for a situation in 20, 30 or 40 years time when nobody here will be a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the people who will be looking after the financial affairs of the country are people we do not know. I am quite sure that the present Government or, indeed, the alternative Government would not act in such a fashion. We must lay down a proper framework. That proper framework must consist of the examination of these matters in a non-emergency situation. If the Minister feels that provisions like this are necessary, the Bill should be drafted in such a way as to limit its operations to a particular period of time. On the expiry of that period or in advance of it other legislation could be introduced to make permanent arrangements which the Minister of the time might consider to be necessary in the light of experience.

We would want to be very careful about any Bill that is headed "Special Provisions" or any emergency legislation because this becomes a permanent part of the legislative process. If this Bill is enacted into law it is very likely that nobody will ever look at it again until such time as an emergency of one kind or another arises. The way in which it is drawn up is much too broad. It is much too blunt an instrument to be given on a permanent basis to the Government of the day.

The Minister may well say that orders made under this Bill as enacted would have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have never believed, nor do I believe now, that that is an effective check on the operation of the legislation which may be put to a use for which it was not originally intended. There is nothing that can compare with the enactment of legislation in due process. There is nothing that can compare with the issuing of a Bill with an explanatory memorandum and the allowing of a period of time to elapse for those with specialist knowledge to comment on it and to advise those of us who might be interested in contributing in the House. Nothing can compare with that.

I recommend very strongly to the Minister that he give serious consideration to accepting the recommendations which I will put forward on Committee Stage or alternatively introducing an amendment of his own which would have the same effect as the suggestion in my recommendation and the feeling behind Senator Hillery's plea with regard to the operation of the Bill.

I find it extraordinary that we are expected to pass a Bill at such short notice on an issue of such national importance. We have not got an explanatory memorandum concerning this Bill and certainly I did not have time to do any in-depth study of its implications. It is not the first time that this House has been treated in this manner and asked to rush through very important legislation at such short notice and without having time properly to investigate all the circumstances surrounding a particular issue.

The strike has been on for some time. The Minister had the best part of three weeks to alert us to the fact that he was bringing in this Bill and yet it was not done. At this late stage I would say to the Minister for Finance to go back to the negotiating table. The Central Bank have the right under some Act to negotiate for themselves. The Bill in front of us now leaves the officials in such a state that there is no scope for normal negotiation. I say to the Minister "go back to the negotiating table even at this late stage."

On a point of order, is it in order for the Senator to refer to the strike if I was not allowed to refer to the strike or is it the tone of our comments that the chairperson——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Lynch to continue.

Is it in order? I would like a decision on it. I will accept your decision whatever it is, but I just want to know if it is in order.

I will not refer to the strike any more. Senator O'Leary is right in one remark he made, that this legislation could and probably would be left on the Statue Book permanently. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill have a limited life, perhaps until the end of March, 1985. In the meantime, I would like the Minister to let the House know exactly where he stands with regard to official quotations for the value of our money in the EMS. I understand that a commercial bank will be delegated certain functions and the functions that will be delegated are not functions — the Minister will probably agree with me — that would normally be discharged by the commercial bank. We will have a problem with stocks and dividends that cannot be paid, and I think the Minister should be straight with the House and let us know will payments from the Exchequer account be affected by this legislation — I am sure they will be — and what effect that will have when the Budget is presented. Will it show a false figure — as it certainly can — and in this respect we are entitled to know if the Minister has a vested interest in bringing forward this legislation at this particular time.

I just rise to support this legislation and to compliment the Minister for his quick and decisive action in bringing it forward and in ensuring that the members of the public who obviously would be involved will not have to suffer adversely, especially coming up to the Christmas period and the time of the year when they are due their dividends or interest. It is encouraging to find that the Minister has, without any great delay, grasped this nettle and ensured that innocent persons will not suffer inconvenience and loss, especially, as the people at the root of the problem could be described as some of the fatter cats in our society. It is unfortunate that these things happen, and I hope that the machinery provided for solving these problems will be helped to reach a solution that is agreeable all round. Emergency legislation like this is never good, and I agree with Senator O'Leary that there should be a time limit on it.

I disagree with the previous speaker: it is not unusual and certainly over the years we have had many occasions in the House where various bits of legislation were introduced on an emergency basis because they were necessary for the common good at that particular period. It is always welcome to find the Oireachtas taking decisive action and showing that the ordinary running of the State will continue as smoothly as possible. For that reason, I want to compliment the Minister for tackling the problem and I hope that the necessity for this legislation will be short lived.

Very briefly, I would like to say that I share the views of Senator Lynch. The Minister has said that the measures in this Bill would be reasonable to cater for any temporary disruption or threat of disruption of public services and that these need not be necessarily due to a strike but could be due to many other factors. In a sense, this is very important legislation which will go on our Statute Book and I believe that we have had insufficient notice; indeed the short notice is not in keeping with the importance of the Bill.

As well as the items listed by the Minister in his introductory speech I would also say that it is a big drawback that at the present time there is no accurate assessment of the currency exchange rate. I simply want to say that I share the views and reservations of my colleagues that we have not had sufficient time to consider this Bill.

I had not intended to say anything on this legislation because I realise that it is a piece of emergency legislation. I must accept the Minister's opening speech when he said that he was introducing it for specific reasons that need not necessarily be as a result of the disruption of the public finances due to any particular reason. The Minister mentioned the strike in the second paragraph. He mentioned that this legislation need not necessarily be due to a strike but could arise out of any other situation, which is the point Senator O'Leary was talking about. There are other situations, physical and mechanical, which could create a situation where the interests of the common good could be at stake.

I think it is accepted by all sides of the House that in this particular instance, the people who are due to receive interest payments from State guarantees and State investments are now, through no fault of their own, suffering as a result of the inability of the Central Bank because of certain considerations to pay out what is rightfully due to these people. The Minister rightly, in the interests of the common good, and in view of the responsibility imposed on him by statute in the Constitution, with that overall responsibility, deems it appropriate that in certain circumstances he would be enabled by legislation or otherwise by an order in this House to perform his functions.

I would not read any more into it and, as a trade unionist, I would not want to have read into it that this is in fact some heavy-handed action on behalf of either a Minister of a Government or anybody else which would interfere with the constitutional rights of trade unionists to negotiate, actually to serve a notice on their employer, actually to go through the process of discussion, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, the Labour Court and in fact strike action, if that is what they wish to do. That is the constitutional right of any worker. I am glad that I can never envisage the day when people would be precluded from exercising constitutional rights. That is the argument that Senator Hillery was making when he rightly asked was it possible that there could be some people at a certain level, in the public service particularly, who would be excluded. It would not be a new phenomenon.

There is already a class of people in the public service who are precluded, in the overall interest of the country, from taking strike action. I think that is appropriate. There are certain sections of public servants that the general public could not do without. I suppose because of that privilege they are exceedingly well paid. That is the compensation for always having to be available in the public interest. It is appropriate that people should be compensated for that. There are times when the public would not accept that legislators who are very important in this context should be treated in that way. That is one of the problems we have to contend with in view of the public image we have. I would regard this legislation as of a temporary nature. Safeguards are envisaged in the Bill in which any orders arising out of it would be laid before the Houses and could be rescinded by the Houses if it was considered by Members that it was not in their common interest that such orders should be made by the Minister or any future Minister because of the enactment of this legislation.

I have expressed concern about the common good arising out of the present situation in the Central Bank. We have talked about investors and depositors and people benefiting from State guarantees and loans. Another section will possibly suffer arising out of this. I would make a plea, because of their special position in society, that social welfare recipients who anticipated that at Christmas, by decision of the Minister, they would benefit by a double payment will not be disappointed, If any action of any group of people would preclude that from happening in that sensitive area, I would appeal to those concerned to make a special effort to facilitate people in that category. They are at this time of the year under stress and strain with finances to cope with the holiday period. I am making a genuine plea here. It is not made in any way disregarding any case that anybody might have for a betterment of conditions. They should think of those much less privileged than themselves. I commend the Bill. The Minister has acted responsibly in coming before the House with his thoughts on the subject and I support this measure.

I want to thank Members of the House for the remarks they made about the Bill and the questions that they have asked, which reflect the concern that I have and the concern of the House generally. It goes without saying that I would much rather not be in the position where I have to come before the House with a Bill of this kind. However, given the situation that has emerged, I think the House would agree that there is no option but to have measures to deal with the situation. The question then, of course, is which particular measures are required.

The provisions of the Bill, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, respond to the concern of Members here as far as it is possible to do that. Senator Hillery was worried in particular about the postponement of interest payments. That is one of the larger areas of concern in this matter. In response to this specific question, to my knowledge the ASTMS has not been asked to exempt staff. That is something which I will consider, together with another suggestion that was made to me yesterday which I have equally considered. I feel at this point — and Senator Hillery may not be entirely a blank page on this particular matter — that it might be a little counter-productive to suggest that staff of the Department of Finance would go down to the Central Bank and take away the register. It is not practicable since a large part of the registers are computerised. The computer staff in the Central Bank are out at the moment. The Senator will agree with me that people who do not know what they are at, if they are trying to take out information that is normally used in the computerised system, could do more damage than good, even if they were to succeed in taking it out.

As far as the management of the external reserves is concerned, that is being done by those of the staff of the bank who are not on strike, the Governor and a number of the senior staff members of the bank who, I would have to say, have shown a very considerable dedication to their work in this difficult period for them. They are ensuring that the central statutory functions of the bank continue to be carried out.

For example, I would mention that the normal detailed controls of the Central Bank on the operations of the Exchequer account are not possible. We have global controls in operation at the moment. Those controls and the issuing of the global amounts are carried out strictly in accordance with the total amounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General's credits. Detailed daily statements of issues from the Exchequer account are being provided for the Comptroller and Auditor General by my Department, rather than by the Central Bank.

I may have misunderstood Senator Lynch but if I may say so in an uncontentious way I thought it was most extraordinary to find a Member of the House suggesting that in some way I had a vested interest in bringing the Bill forward at this stage and asking the question whether the budget would show false figures. Really, that is downright scandalous. It is certainly not in keeping with the dignity of this House that a question like that should be asked. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been fully consulted on the measures that have been put forward. He retains his proper functions. This State has been very well served down through the years by successive Comptrollers and Auditors General and I have every confidence in the present holder of that office to continue in that position. So, the House need not worry if any worries are there about that particular aspect of the situation in which we find ourselves today.

In relation to the operation of exchange controls, the Central Bank have had to increase the authority given to banks in certain areas in the operation of exchange controls. We have encountered no major problems so far. I am quite happy at the moment that that matter is being dealt with as well as it can be in the circumstances. On the foreign exchange market, operations continue to go smoothly. the operations on the market are being monitored by the bank. Monetary policy equally is primarly a matter for the Central Bank. They continue to be in a position to control and monitor overall banking liquidity. So there is no immediate problem in that area. The normal reporting procedures that are required from the licensed banks continue to be observed. The Central Bank have available to them the credit information that is necessary to assess ongoing developments. From that point of view the statutory functions of the Central Bank which are not affected by this Bill — only a very limited part of the Central Bank statutory functions are affected by this Bill — continue to be carried out by the bank.

A number of Senators raised the matter of putting a time limit to the Bill. I would like to deal with that matter, first of all, by reference to the provisions that are in the Bill. Senator O'Leary was particularly worried about the business of having on a permanent basis an Act which allows emergency measures to be taken. I refer Senator O'Leary, and indeed Senators Hillery and McDonald who expressed worries in this regard, to section 2 (1) which sets out the circumstances in which the Minister may make arrangements:

Whenever the Minister is satisfied that, owing to special circumstances of a temporary nature, it is not possible to do any one or more of the following, that is to say, to operate the Exchequer account in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, to operate a State account or to carry out any other financial transaction on behalf of the State, he may, if he believes that it is in the national interest to do so,...

That limits very strictly the circumstances in which the orders covered by this Bill can be made.

In addition, we have the provisions in the Bill which provide for the making of orders in these circumstances, and while the Minister is satisfied that those circumstances prevail he will make orders which come before the Oireachtas.

Senator O'Leary expressed the view that the mechanism provided by orders is not an effective check on measures that have been taken. I would beg leave to differ with the Senator on that matter. I think it is a matter of fact that in most cases orders made are perhaps not as closely scrutinised by the House as they might be, but I would think that that is probably more a function of the content of the order, the subject matter of the order, rather than a feeling on the part of the Houses that the orders themselves are not very interesting things and therefore do not require attention. I certainly take the view that orders of this kind — which personally I would be reluctant to introduce in the first place, if the circumstances did not oblige me to do it — would probably attract a great deal more attention and much closer attention than most of the orders that come on the Order Paper of the House.

In those circumstances, the Houses may annul an order by the procedure that is laid down, so that if Members of the Houses so wish we could indeed have a very close scrutiny of the matters set out in the order. Having said that, I would be prepared to reflect on what the situation might be after this particular difficulty has passed and quite prepared to give consideration to the possibility of inserting a certain suitable provision into existing legislation that would meet this particular problem, although I am bound to say that I cannot see at first glance if that would make an enormous difference. It seems to me that if we were to insert in an appropriate piece of legislation provisions that would allow something like this to be done it would still be necessary to operate on the basis that in certain restricted circumstances the Minister would be empowered to make orders for certain things to be done and we would be back with the same sort of formula, the application of it being defined in restrictive terms as we have in this Bill. I cannot see, as I said, what great difference would be made by resorting to a method like that. I hope to consider those matters, and if another way can be found to make a provision I will certainly like to do it.

I cannot, therefore, see the particular utility of limiting in time the application of this Bill since we do not know what the time span will be of the present problem. It is conceivable, and I certainly hope that this will be the case, that I would be in a position long before 31 March to cancel or withdraw the order. It is equally not beyond the bounds of possibility that the problem could last for longer than that, so that wherever we face a terminal date for the Bill we would have the problem that we might on arrival at that terminal date have to have the same discussion again. I cannot see that there would be any great advantage in doing that particularly when, as I said, the order is to give effect to the provisions here and will come before the Houses and will have to be the subject of scrutiny.

I think that covers the main points made by Members of the House. I would ask your indulgence for my temporary absence; I had to move a motion in another place and I got back here as quickly as I could. It was no discourtesy to the House, I think you will understand the exigency of the situation. I would like to thank again Members for the concern thay have shown and I assure them that both in regard to the difficulties dealt with in section 3 of the Bill and the regret that the Bill is necessary at all in the first place, I fully share the concerns expressed this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

On a point of order, if I felt that the payments from the Exchequer account were to be reduced, surely I am entitled to inquire from the Minister if this would have an effect on the budget figures?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not a point of order. The Minister has concluded on the Second Stage. If you want to take up something on Committee Stage I will allow it. Before we go on, it is almost 12.30 now and we are very nearly finished with this legislation. Would the House like to continue?

I think we should continue. We are almost finished, unless the Opposition have any problem. If we proceed, we might be able to wrap it up.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Top
Share